It sounded too bad to be true when readers e-mailed me and posted links, so I wasn’t going to post about it until I could check it out further. Here’s further. It’s true:

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

It was 1969 and I was in my first year in medical school. I hated it and felt I must have made a terrible error. I had friends at Harvard Law and made a trip to Cambridge to explore an alternative. I attended a number of classes with my friends. The only one I remember was the course in Civil Procedure in which the renowned professor spent two hours quizzing students about what it meant to be a citizen of the state of New Jersey.

That was all I needed. I returned to medical school with renewed interest and motivation.

“Among the candidate’s noteworthy declarations, we can count his address to a New Hampshire audience last October, in which he described his upset after reading the text of John F. Kennedy’s landmark 1960 speech dedicated to the separation of church and state. “I almost threw up,” he told his listeners. Kennedy, he announced, “threw his faith under the bus in that speech.”

That an American candidate’s commitment to the separation of church and state made Mr. Santorum want to vomit—and that this fact was something in which he took pride, and wanted to share with an audience—is telling. What it tells isn’t something the citizenry tends to find endearing.”

“I had an opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up,” Santorum told a crowd in October at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H.

Santorum went on to explain: “In my opinion, it was the beginning of the secular movement of politicians to separate their faith from the public square, and he [Kennedy] threw faith under the bus in that speech.”

Misjudged or misconstrued Kennedy’s Speech. That wasn’t what Kennedy said, he said:

“I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.”

“…Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”

That seems to be a man saying that the princes of the Church shall not decree the policies of the United States, but his personal judgement, faith and conscience would be his guide to making decisions. I am not seeing the rabid Anti-God/Christian thing I see and hear daily from the media and left leaning folks in this speech.

I’m a Michigan native, though I had to leave during the Carter administration because of my addiction to food and shelter. As I recall, the trees in Michigan ARE just the right height – they reach all the way down to the ground.

That “too bad to be true” link is indeed true. I listened to the audio of the trial and the “judge” said exactly that. The man must be a complete moron. The Constitution doesn’t GIVE us rights. It recognizes that government has a duty to protect and preserve our rights. There is a huge difference and anyone who has been to college and law school ought to know that. But this “judge” is truly a moron. I hope he is thrown out on his anti-American A55 at the earliest possible moment!

Worst class: Constitutional Law – couldn’t tell the difference between the commerce clause and the dormant commerce clause and disagreed with Justice Jackson that the Tenth Amendment was a truism. Getting close?

“A Saul Alinsky-tied group has been awarded a $56 million federal loan to start up a nonprofit health insurance company — one of several organizations across the country this week tapped to launch a new network of insurers under the sponsorship of the federal health care overhaul.

The Wisconsin group, Common Ground Health Cooperative, was awarded funding on Tuesday. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the group is expected to provide coverage statewide within five years after starting on a smaller scale in early 2014.

But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson questioned the group’s credentials — given its affilitation and lack of experience in the insurance field.

‘The indisputable fact is that Common Ground was an outgrowth of the Alinsky operation in Chicago,’ Wilson said. “We’re not giving money to a group with experience in health care issues or in setting up exchanges. We’re handing the money to people who have been trained by arguably the single most expert individual on community organizing in the last 100 years.”

Common Ground, a Milwaukee group that dates back to 2004, is an affiliate of the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation.”

Would it interest you to know that I gleened that information from a blog that is also run by a teaching professor? Odd, that professor seems to want to inform us on exactly why it is that we need to get rid of Obama, not pump up someone who has no ability to write legislation, or vote on legislation.

I started coming here because Professor Jacobson gave us clear, concise information with an opinion based on a conservative legal view. If I wanted to join a cheerleading squad, I would go to Palin or Gingrich’s websites.

Recently there was a case where a man, dressed as a Islamist on Halloween (I think it was) was beaten badly by two Muslims in the U.S. The perps were arrested and went to trial. They were found innocent, by a U.S. Muslim judge, who said basically the man deserved to be beaten because he insulted Islam and let the criminals go free. It is that kind of thing that the professor should be discussing. Can the man appeal the decision? Can the judge be removed from court for allowing his faith to taint his judgement?

And if you don’t go along with the hero worship here, the members (or posters) here will attack with such vitriol that you would think they are rabid Democrats.

Yes, I’m quite fortunate in where I live. Line dancing? Nah, that is something people do just so they can wear a pair of boots and a cheap straw hat and pretend to be cowboys. Drug store cowboys, all of them. None of them would last 8 seconds around a real cowboy.

Henry, I have been coming to this blog long before you discovered it. There was a time when the good professor discussed issues that were pertinent to his field, giving us insight into the judicial aspect of our nation from a Constitutionalists POV, of course.

And if you are going to say that I am as “prolific” as others, I suggest you do a count. I go days without coming here, unlike you who seems to be always present.

I also, unlike you, can debate without lobbing pejoratives and insults at others. You might want to try that.

@Retire05 – your first comment here was Jan 31, 2010, so you have been here a long time. But what have you done for us lately other than complain about almost everything, try to instigate comment wars, and announce why you don’t like this blog anymore. It’s getting old.

Professor Jacobson, when I first started bookmarking blogs, I did them in the order of importance to read (i.e. first blog listed, first blog to read each day). I have not changed my listing order although I have added to it. Yours is #2 on my list.

You did not have the followers then you have now, but your entries were always interesting, and ALWAYS informative. I learned things, especially about the judicial leg of our three legged government, here that was not available to me anywhere else. Oh, yes, you did comment on other issues, but always from a conservative point of view and you did not get into political weeds. Not so much anymore.

Now, you allow commentators to name call, to insult and to subject other readers to pejoratives that would get their noses broken in any other setting. And it seems that you are only too happy to contribute to that setting by saying that any dissenting opinion is an attempt to “instigate comment wars.”

You comment shows that you are not interested in the advance of the First Amenment (perhaps you are and that explains the allowing of name calling by others, but only for those who follow blithly with your agenda) nor can you can handle what should be viewed as constructive criticism.

Perhaps after the elections you will return your blog to being informative, and entertaining, blog it once way that was once a national blog and not a campaign stop for Newt Gingrich or a fan club for Sarah Palin. I will anticipate that day but for now leave you to the lemmings that object to any opinion that does not fit with theirs (or yours), as that seems to be your desire.

You obviously harbor some kind of grudge against the Professor. Everbody gets a little negative once in a while, but with you it has become tediously constant. With your monotonous jabs at the Professor, I’m a little surprised he hasn’t given you the boot. I would expect the Professor to be tolerant of disagreement … polite disagreement … but you’ve become akin to a frustrated heckler.

I always get a kick out of it when people announce on the internet (blog, message board, etc.) that they don’t like what a site has become, or when they melodramatically announce their departure. Anthropomorphism is one thing, but when people ascribe to their cyber-patronage of websites the real-world toil of patronage of a brick and mortar business, spending time in traffic, gas, etc., it gets to be a little ridiculous. You’re a finger click away from going to the next “store,” and there are gazillions of them on this virtual shopping mall.

You’re jab at Henry Hawkins is just as lame. You’re going to try and lay a guilt trip on him because he likes to come here? So do I! Why should someone feel ashamed for visiting their favorite sites? And what you call an “echo chamber,” I would call camaraderie. If I decided tomorrow Mitt Romney was my guy, I certainly wouldn’t feel reluctant to talk about it here. Others might poke fun at me, and that’s when it’s time to good-naturedly poke fun back.

If the Professor wants to start adding more pictures, talk about cooking, or anti-aging research (do you criticize Professor Reynolds for that?) it’s his blog and he can do whatever suits his fancy. Maybe he comes here and doesn’t want to talk about legal minutiae in every single post like you seem to be demanding … who wants to talk shop all the time?

You might accuse me of running to the Professor’s defense, like you have before. I’m well aware he can defend himself. But it’s irritating when he doesn’t respond to your provocations. I believe I understand why he doesn’t. It would be a constant drain on his time. And the minute he would give up on an endless back-and-forth with you, you’d declare victory by forfeit … or at the very least that impression would sit out there.

So, for those of us who like the Professor, it can be a little annoying when he doesn’t smack you down with your constant whining … but I understand why he doesn’t want to get involved … it would just be a time-wasting exercise.

” … perhaps … that explains the allowing of name calling by others, but only for those who follow blithly with your agenda) nor can you can handle what should be viewed as constructive criticism.

[I]leave you to the lemmings that object to any opinion that does not fit with theirs (or yours), as that seems to be your desire.”

Boy, do you sound like a lefty. I don’t follow the Professor’s “agenda.” This is just like when liberals see a quid pro quo with conservative special interest groups giving contributions to conservative candidates who share their worldview. Imagine that.

I happen to share the Professor’s worldview. I have never felt I completely disagreed with him on something. I have felt a bit of disagreement over degree–maybe he thinks something is more important than I feel it is or vice versa.

If I ever feel I profoundly disagree with him about something, I will surely, and without any reluctance, express my disagreement … politely.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

” … nor can you can handle what should be viewed as constructive criticism.”

It must be something in the water in Pennsylvania. Spector used Scottish law to find Clinton not guilty at his impeachment trial (“not proved”), and now this moron. Scary, indeed.
What next, a former tree surgeon who converts to Wicca, becomes a lawyer and judge, and convicts someone who cuts down a tree because they offended Gaia?

So Rick wanting to be Newt’s Mini-Me goes way back to 1989. While I applaud his choice to imitate, I don’t think he is ready to fill Newt’s shoes. Newt is a political natural, with a first rate mind and that’s something you either have going for you or not.

I like Rick but why settle for for the student when I can have the mentor?

I was channel surfing and caught Newt educating that liberal hack Piers.. Morgan I think, over the Obama apologies to Afghanistan. It was quite a display of foreign policy knowledge and skill. I can’t find a link to it, though.